Why do people call it the "Roman" Catholic Church?

[PJM]

=CutlerB;10321548]Almost everyone will have come across the Catholic Church being called the “Roman Catholic Church”. I personally feel rather strongly about the issue, as trivial as it may be. I like things to be called by their proper name.

Examples of her being called the “Roman Catholic Church” that I have come across include our Anglican priest, Church of England publications, most of American Protestantism, and some places in German media. I am aware that the term “Roman Catholic” refers to a specific rite within the Catholic Church, namely the Latin one. There are others like Chaldean or Armenian, as far as I am aware. Thus, I wonder why people generally call the whole institution the “Roman Catholic Church”, as opposed to a certain rite, and some even insist to call her that. Our Anglican priest for example once “corrected” me, telling me it was not the “Catholic Church” but “Roman Catholic”. I have, however, continued to call her by her proper name.

Do you have any ideas? Thanks.

I suspect it is this:

When Peter was evicted forcefully from Jerusalem because of SEVERE persecution He fled to Rome. If memory serves Both Peter and Pual were Martyred in Rome and the Main Church in Rome sits ontop of Peters grave.

That’s why:thumbsup:

Welcome HOME my friend!
pat/PJM

 

[BVMFatima]

“Roman Rite” is a synonym for the Roman Liturgy, which is by far the most common liturgy in the Latin rite Church. Yes, Catholic terminology really is a mess.

But Latin rites are the liturgies of the Roman Church. Examples would be the Roman Rite, Ambrosian etc.

When I say Roman Rite Catholic, I’m talking about the Latin Church which practices the Roman Rite, just like Ukranian Greek Catholics who call themselves Byzantines

 

[Angainor]

Why do people call it the “Roman” Catholic Church?

Simple disambiguation. “Catholic Church” is ambiguous.

When writing, I have tried using Catholic Church™ to be unambiguous. I’m not sure that is an improvement.

 

[CutlerB]

Simple disambiguation. “Catholic Church” is ambiguous.

When writing, I have tried using Catholic Church™ to be unambiguous. I’m not sure that is an improvement.

From what has been written in this thread, I come to the conclusion, that Protestants have to see as being ambiguous, no matter whether it actually is, because they feel the need to squeeze their denomination in. I guess some Catholics would say it is not ambiguous.

 

[Angainor]

From what has been written in this thread, I come to the conclusion, that Protestants have to see as being ambiguous, no matter whether it actually is, because they feel the need to squeeze their denomination in. I guess some Catholics would say it is not ambiguous.

Not exactly. Of course “Catholic Church” isn’t really ambiguous. It only is ambiguous in the popular imagination because of aggressive marketing and savvy branding by Roman clergy since the sixteenth century to corner the market on the term “Catholic Church™” to promote the fictional idea that only the Pope can say who is or is not part of the Catholic Church.

 

[CutlerB]

Not exactly. Of course “Catholic Church” isn’t really ambiguous. It only is ambiguous in the popular imagination because of aggressive marketing and savvy branding by Roman clergy since the sixteenth century to corner the market on the term “Catholic Church™” to promote the fictional idea that only the Pope can say who is or is not part of the Catholic Church.

That’s nothing different than what I meant. You say it includes the Protestants, and someone else says it doesn’t. And are you really saying that the term “Catholic Church” came to mean what it means today only after the sixteenth century? That is hardly tenable.

 

[Angainor]

And are you really saying that the term “Catholic Church” came to mean what it means today only after the sixteenth century? That is hardly tenable.

There you go, being ambiguous.

1. 
   *]No, of course I do not think the term “Catholic Church” came to mean what it, in reality, means only after the sixteenth century.
   *]Yes, of course I think the term “Catholic Church™” came to mean what it popularly means today only after the sixteenth century. I don’t think the Catholic Church™ existed before the council of Trent.

 

[CutlerB]

There you go, being ambiguous.

1. 
   *]No, of course I do not think the term “Catholic Church” came to mean what it, in reality, means only after the sixteenth century.
   *]Yes, of course I think the term “Catholic Church™” came to mean what it popularly means today only after the sixteenth century. I don’t think the Catholic Church™ existed before the council of Trent.

1. 
   How was I being ambiguous? I was saying that people view it differently but that is not the same as it actually being ambiguous.
   
   Concerning 2: Interesting, if it didn’t exist before Trent, what was all the fuss about?

 

[steve_b]

Almost everyone will have come across the Catholic Church being called the “Roman Catholic Church”. I personally feel rather strongly about the issue, as trivial as it may be. I like things to be called by their proper name.

Examples of her being called the “Roman Catholic Church” that I have come across include our Anglican priest, Church of England publications, most of American Protestantism, and some places in German media. I am aware that the term “Roman Catholic” refers to a specific rite within the Catholic Church, namely the Latin one. There are others like Chaldean or Armenian, as far as I am aware. Thus, I wonder why people generally call the whole institution the “Roman Catholic Church”, as opposed to a certain rite, and some even insist to call her that. Our Anglican priest for example once “corrected” me, telling me it was not the “Catholic Church” but “Roman Catholic”. I have, however, continued to call her by her proper name.

Do you have any ideas? Thanks.

Has anyone showed you this? Roman Catholic

 

[Angainor]

How was I being ambiguous? I was saying that people view it differently but that is not the same as it actually being ambiguous.

Concerning 2: Interesting, if it didn’t exist before Trent, what was all the fuss about?

Your question was ambiguous because I could not simply answer it without my answer being ambiguous.

In 1517, a friar posted 95 theses on a church door. Posting stuff on the church door was completely ordinary, by the way. It was like a bulletin board.

Why did he post those theses?
Out of love for the truth and the desire to bring it to light, the following propositions will be discussed at Wittenberg, under the presidency of the Reverend Father Martin Luther, Master of Arts and of Sacred Theology, and Lecturer in Ordinary on the same at that place. Wherefore he requests that those who are unable to be present and debate orally with us, may do so by letter.
He wanted to talk about them. This provoked a “fuss.”

 

[CutlerB]

Your question was ambiguous because I could not simply answer it without my answer being ambiguous.

In 1517, a friar posted 95 theses on a church door. Posting stuff on the church door was completely ordinary, by the way. It was like a bulletin board.

Why did he post those theses?
Out of love for the truth and the desire to bring it to light, the following propositions will be discussed at Wittenberg, under the presidency of the Reverend Father Martin Luther, Master of Arts and of Sacred Theology, and Lecturer in Ordinary on the same at that place. Wherefore he requests that those who are unable to be present and debate orally with us, may do so by letter.
He wanted to talk about them. This provoked a “fuss.”

I wasn’t referring to this. What I was trying to say is this:

How could Luther talk about the head of an institution, that didn’t exist until about 30 or more years later? Because that is what you are saying, when you write: “I don’t think the Catholic Church™ existed before the council of Trent.” Indeed, which Church existed then, that Luther was referring to? According to your sentence, nothing could have been wrong with the “Catholic Church™” because she didn’t exist. But if she didn’t exist, who was Luther referring to in his theses? That’s what I mean.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

We affirm that** the Church subsists in the Catholic Church**, governed by the successor of Peter and the bishops in communion with him.

Meaning that all Christian communities which at some time or another have separated themselves are “not in full communion” with the Church. The body of Christ, mystically speaking, is made of every disciple properly baptized.

We could not, then, effectuate that substitution - though many traditionalist Catholics would say that we can - because the communities not in full communion with the Church are thus, to an extent, in partial communion with the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church, or “part” of it.

CulterB I have seen this clause from LG quoted and interpretted every which way so many times that I no longer have any idea what it means .

Some questions that constantly puzzle me are:
"the Church subsists in the Catholic Church"
(a) What does “Church” mean in concrete terms in the above phrase?
(b) what does “subsist” mean:

• like a soul subsisting in a body? Or is it the reverse, body subsisting in soul?
• like a boat floating on a lake? (which means there’s room for other boats of various sizes)
• in short, is one term bigger than the other, do these terms intersect partially or subsume the other completely, can multiple expressions of one term be subsumed by the single other term. Its a nightmare expression .
  (c) What does “Catholic Church” actually mean in this expression.
• can other “churches” belong to the Catholic Church anonymously or partially in some mystical manner?

And just to cap it all off. If we can come to clarify the above… how does the “Body of Christ” and the “Mystical Body of Christ” relate to the above. Are these two the same?

I know less about the above than I did 20 years ago .
I await for someone to enlighten me though. Maybe someone here can

 

[Angainor]

I wasn’t referring to this. What I was trying to say is this:

How could Luther talk about the head of an institution, that didn’t exist until about 30 or more years later? Because that is what you are saying, when you write: “I don’t think the Catholic Church™ existed before the council of Trent.” Indeed, which Church existed then, that Luther was referring to? According to your sentence, nothing could have been wrong with the “Catholic Church™” because she didn’t exist. But if she didn’t exist, who was Luther referring to in his theses? That’s what I mean.

You have a thoroughly Catholic™ worldview. You know your world view better than me, I’m sure. When you think back to 1517, you project your worldview into the picture. But the Catholic™ worldview didn’t exist then. The Catholic™ worldview was manufactured.

The Pope was the top guy of the Church. As the top guy, he did stuff and said stuff. He got no resistance from the people around him, so the ship just sailed around like that.

A friar starts thinking that maybe some of the things the Pope is saying and doing aren’t true and opens a discussion on things like indulgences and purgatory. He was not trying to be revolutionary. He thought he was being completely reasonable, because people didn’t have the Catholic™ worldview. He thought he could say, “let’s try to get the the bottom of these things the Pope has been doing and saying and see if they are true.”

The rest of the story is unfortunate. There would be no reasoned discussion about whether the things the Pope has been saying and doing were true. All the Pope needed to know was that his authority to do what he wanted to do was questioned and blanket condemnations orders to recant soon followed. It was difficult for the Pope to get more specific because the things Luther was talking about weren’t dogma at the time, they were just things the Pope was saying and doing.

Church hierarchy eventually got together and formalized medieval innovations at the Council of Trent, to which the now former friar was not invited. Catholicism™ was born.

 

[CutlerB]

You have a thoroughly Catholic™ worldview.

I am glad to hear that.

When you think back to 1517, you project your worldview into the picture.

Excuse me, but you are doing just the same thing, Sir.

But the Catholic™ worldview didn’t exist then. The Catholic™ worldview was manufactured.

May I ask for your proof to support this rather peculiar claim?

The Pope was the top guy of the Church. As the top guy, he did stuff and said stuff. He got no resistance from the people around him, so the ship just sailed around like that.

You haven’t told me yet how the Pope could even exist, if the Catholic Church didn’t exist until the Council of Trent. I am also interested in finding out how a Church that doesn’t exist can found herself in a council that she convenes.

A friar starts thinking that maybe some of the things the Pope is saying and doing aren’t true and opens a discussion on things like indulgences and purgatory.

I don’t see anything wrong with that, as abuses must be dealt with, and so they were at Trent. Still, according to your previous argument you cannot even make this claim, since no Pope existed, because no Catholic Church existed.

He was not trying to be revolutionary. He thought he was being completely reasonable, because people didn’t have the Catholic™ worldview. He thought he could say, “let’s try to get the the bottom of these things the Pope has been doing and saying and see if they are true.”

Forgive me, but just because he thinks he is reasonable, doesn’t make him right. And I hope you know that Luther was not the cute little plushy ball of fluff that you seem to be making him into. From all I have read (and that is quite a bit) he wasn’t really that reasonable, although I agree with his conviction that abuses must not exist.

The rest of the story is unfortunate. There would be no reasoned discussion about whether the things the Pope has been saying and doing were true. All the Pope needed to know was that his authority to do what he wanted to do was questioned and blanket condemnations orders to recant soon followed. It was difficult for the Pope to get more specific because the things Luther was talking about weren’t dogma at the time, they were just things the Pope was saying and doing.

You’re very vague with your “saying and doing”. And it was certainly not a blanket condemnation, since the Pope did not ask Luther to recant all of his theses.

Church hierarchy eventually got together and formalized medieval innovations at the Council of Trent, to which the now former friar was not invited. Catholicism™ was born.

Sorry, but that is just plain wrong, as long as you have no proof.

 

[steve_b]

There you go, being ambiguous.

1. 
   ]No, of course I do not think the term “Catholic Church” came to mean what it, in reality, means only after the sixteenth century.
   ]Yes, of course I think the term “Catholic Church™” came to mean what it popularly means today only after the sixteenth century.* I don’t think the Catholic Church™ existed before the council of Trent.***

1. 
   Where’s your evidence?

 

[Angainor]

Forgive me, but just because he thinks he is reasonable, doesn’t make him right. And I hope you know that Luther was not the cute little plushy ball of fluff that you seem to be making him into. From all I have read (and that is quite a bit) he wasn’t really that reasonable, although I agree with his conviction that abuses must not exist.

I’m not saying that he was right at the moment. I’m saying he thought it was reasonable to open up discussion on those topics to determine the truth about them. He was not even certain he was right about the theses. The point of the theses was to have a discussion so the true or falseness of the theses could be determined. In 1517, how could Luther have ascertained the truth or falseness of the 95 theses? What if you lived back then and Luther asked you instead of posting them on the church door?

What if he asked you if “the penitential canons apply only to men who are still alive, and, according to the canons themselves, none applies to the dead.”

You haven’t told me yet how the Pope could even exist, if the Catholic Church didn’t exist until the Council of Trent. I am also interested in finding out how a Church that doesn’t exist can found herself in a council that she convenes.

The Catholic Church existed. The Pope existed. The Pope and the church hierarchy walled themselves up in what was essentially a new denomination. A very large denomination to be sure, but a denomination. I’m sure they were convinced their denomination was The Catholic Church, but it is not true.

You’re very vague with your “saying and doing”. And it was certainly not a blanket condemnation, since the Pope did not ask Luther to recant all of his theses.

It isn’t actually clear which theses, if any, the Pope actually condemned. Ask Jimmy Akin. See? Things were different back then. How could Luther even know where he was right with the Church hierarchy? You can’t transport your modern Catholic worldview back to that time. These things were not defined. They were things the Pope was saying and doing that he had to scramble to try to justify.

 

[CutlerB]

I’m not saying that he was right at the moment. I’m saying he thought it was reasonable to open up discussion on those topics to determine the truth about them. He was not even certain he was right about the theses. The point of the theses was to have a discussion so the true or falseness of the theses could be determined. In 1517, how could Luther have ascertained the truth or falseness of the 95 theses? What if you lived back then and Luther asked you instead of posting them on the church door?

Well, Trent gave him the answers.

The Catholic Church existed. The Pope existed. The Pope and the church hierarchy walled themselves up in what was essentially a new denomination. A very large denomination to be sure, but a denomination. I’m sure they were convinced their denomination was The Catholic Church, but it is not true.

Thus sayeth CAF forum member Angainor 500 years later. I say it’s exactly the same Church. In your opinion, was the Church before 1517 the One True Church, or not?

It isn’t actually clear which theses, if any, the Pope actually condemned. Ask Jimmy Akin. See? Things were different back then. How could Luther even know where he was right with the Church hierarchy? You can’t transport your modern Catholic worldview back to that time. These things were not defined. They were things the Pope was saying and doing that he had to scramble to try to justify.

You have yet to present a single shred of evidence. And as long as you don’t, I am extremely confident that it is utterly false. You are the first person I hear making such a claim, obviously in an attempt to justify Lutheranism, which to me is an indication of its erroneousness.

 

[Rosinante]

Almost everyone will have come across the Catholic Church being called the “Roman Catholic Church”. I personally feel rather strongly about the issue, as trivial as it may be. I like things to be called by their proper name.

Examples of her being called the “Roman Catholic Church” that I have come across include our Anglican priest, Church of England publications, most of American Protestantism, and some places in German media. I am aware that the term “Roman Catholic” refers to a specific rite within the Catholic Church, namely the Latin one. There are others like Chaldean or Armenian, as far as I am aware. Thus, I wonder why people generally call the whole institution the “Roman Catholic Church”, as opposed to a certain rite, and some even insist to call her that. Our Anglican priest for example once “corrected” me, telling me it was not the “Catholic Church” but “Roman Catholic”. I have, however, continued to call her by her proper name.

Do you have any ideas? Thanks.

While the moniker ‘Roman’ was hung on the Cat. Church by the English, and inteneded to be derogatory, it also serves as a source of pride, when you think about why the Church is based out of Rome.

It was St. Peter’s bishopric when he was martyred–and St. Paul was there helping him at the time as well, and martyred on the very same day (albeit by different mode of execution, due to the latter’s Roman citizenship).

The word that comes to mind here, is: Legitimacy. (in stark contrast to the fruitcakes that seek to employ the Roman association, as somehow negative).

 

[GWright]

Ultimately, it was protestants who started the “roman” Catholic thing.

This is because some of them wanted to pretend that they were somehow Catholics too, just a different type to the Romans. (the ones whose services are a close imitation of our own - Anglicans etc). But they are not Catholics.

Catholic means universal - obviously it is absurd to place a qualifier (roman) in front of the word universal. Something is either universal, or it is not.

The protestants had to justify their own existence, see - after all, if there was already a universal church (ie a Church for everyone) then what is the point of them exactly? This is why they attempt to deny the Church its genuine identity.

There is only one Church, the Catholic Church.

The Church is pretty easy going about the term “roman” and even has used it on occasion, for the sake of peace.

(some people also like to use ‘roman’ to claim that the Church is really the last left-overs of the Roman Empire, despite the fact it has grown exponentially since the fall of that Empire.

And finally, some people often use ‘Roman’ when they really mean ‘Latin’ when talking about the Latin Rite part of the Church).

 

[Rosinante]

Ultimately, it was protestants who started the “roman” Catholic thing.

This is because some of them wanted to pretend that they were somehow Catholics too, just a different type to the Romans. (the ones whose services are a close imitation of our own - Anglicans etc). But they are not Catholics.

Catholic means universal - obviously it is absurd to place a qualifier (roman) in front of the word universal. Something is either universal, or it is not.

The protestants had to justify their own existence, see - after all, if there was already a universal church (ie a Church for everyone) then what is the point of them exactly? This is why they attempt to deny the Church its genuine identity.

There is only one Church, the Catholic Church.

The Church is pretty easy going about the term “roman” and even has used it on occasion, for the sake of peace.

(some people also like to use ‘roman’ to claim that the Church is really the last left-overs of the Roman Empire, despite the fact it has grown exponentially since the fall of that Empire.

And finally, some people often use ‘Roman’ when they really mean ‘Latin’ when talking about the Latin Rite part of the Church).

Concur.